Annual College Football Blogging
King Kaufman explains why Tulane (2-10) is the new college football champion, and he makes as much sense as the current system.
Let me just add that Tulane is so excited by this success that they will be expanding their program... to Four Lane.
Oh, it's great to be back.
Why not "Six Lane" ?
Remember, Tupac was 4 cans short of 6 pack.
Posted by: Neo | January 06, 2009 at 10:58 AM
Well in 1997 Tulane had the Utah problem. They went 12-0, including bowl game win but no lovin' for number 1 in BCS (finished 7th in the polls). So, let's make the 1997 Green Wave this year's champs to rectify past slights- call it football reparations.
Posted by: Barry Dauphin | January 06, 2009 at 11:20 AM
All season long I've been saying the Big 12 was the premier conference in 2008. Now I'm not so sure. Two of their top four teams have lost in bowl games, and none of the rest, particularly including Texas, has been impressive at all.
Once again, I think if you gave all the voters truth serum and asked them who was the best team at the end of the season, USC would win the vote handily.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | January 06, 2009 at 11:21 AM
I agree, DoT. I'm no USC fan- and I rooted hard for Penn State- but I can't imagine the argument against USC being the best team in the nation.
Plus. That quarterback is SO CUTE. I think USC gets its QBs from central casting.
Posted by: MayBee | January 06, 2009 at 11:32 AM
I think Florida and Tebow would have something to say about that.
The Oklahoma players have been dissing on Tebow this week...(they say he's the number 4 QB in the country behind the ones in the Big 12...) and I just don't think they realize what happens when you get this guy's dander up...
Plus he has has a very level head on his shoulders and is a great leader with natural talents on and off the field...Bradford reminds me of Nuke LaLouche (sp)
And I'm not even a Florida fan...
Posted by: Stephanie | January 06, 2009 at 11:46 AM
Hey isn't that the same system Minnesota used to make Al Franken senator?
Posted by: FPR | January 06, 2009 at 12:15 PM
Why not the teams that beat Tulane being bracketed in a knock-out tournament winner takes all? If Tulane did all that King says it did then, darn it, Memphis deserves a shot at the national title since they beat Tulane like an old dirty rug.
Posted by: Jack is Back! | January 06, 2009 at 01:05 PM
what differentiates USC is Pete Carroll. His coaching technique is very positive and has a lot of joy in it, unlike most schools. That they have the best coaches and program, and play an NFL style game are two of the other keys. It's amazing that they have performed at such a high level year after year.
Florida is the only other team I think, that plays at that same level regularly.They were quiet this year and had their loss to Ole Miss, but at the end of the season, they are back in the big game again.
Posted by: matt | January 06, 2009 at 01:40 PM
USC - heh heh... and my daughter got several seconds of front and center on national TV during the halftime USC marching band performance. err... beneath the helmet and behind the dark glasses - but it was her!
Posted by: Bill in AZ | January 06, 2009 at 02:00 PM
What sets USC apart is recruiting.
Talent, raw physical talent, makes a team good. All that hogwash about what a wonderful, positive guy that Pete Carrol is is just so much propaganda. He indeed may be a wonderful guy; wonderful at charming 17 year old kids and their parents into committing to the mystique of USC football.
They recruit all over the country, and can get the pick of the best athletes in California. His coaching style has nothing to do with the size and speed of his players, which has everything to do with how good they are.
Ditto Florida. Urban Meyer is a smart guy and a good coach, but his success is solely due to his recruiting.
End of story.
Posted by: E. Nigma | January 06, 2009 at 03:44 PM
Not exactly the end of the story. In 2005 Meyer took over and went 9-3 with Ron Zook's recruits, then won the BCS championship the next year with a team recruited almost entirely by the hapless Zook.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | January 06, 2009 at 04:03 PM
The Oklahoma players have been dissing on Tebow this week...(they say he's the number 4 QB in the country behind the ones in the Big 12...) and I just don't think they realize what happens when you get this guy's dander up...
Plus he has has a very level head on his shoulders and is a great leader with natural talents on and off the field...Bradford reminds me of Nuke LaLouche (sp)
I've really come to dislike Oklahoma this season, primarily because Stoops is a run-it-up ahole who has quite an undistinguished record of choking in BCS games. Tejas showed what happened if you stick with them for three quarters: They fold like wornout cards. All Tebow does is execute the plays that Urban Meyer designs as flawlessly as possible. If what you say about the Okies mocking him is correct, he'll make those simpletons pay and then some. The Georgia morons made the huge mistake of running it up on them last season; this year Urban called all his time outs late in the game to rub their noses in it a few more plays. Payback bitchezz...
Posted by: Captain Hate | January 06, 2009 at 04:04 PM
Zook may have been a "hapless" coach but the frustrating part of the story for Gator fans was that Florida did have talent, just that Zook didn't know how to get the most out of his players. Tebow (and some other key players recruited by Meyer) were freshmen in 2006 and did play a significant part in Florida's championship season.
But without the talent in the first place, even Urban Meyer, good coach that he is, could not have won the BCS National Championship in 2006.
Posted by: E. Nigma | January 06, 2009 at 05:16 PM
Well, I note that Charlie Weis gets a top-ten recruiting class every year at Notre Dame, but still manages to log a 3-9 season followed by 7-6. In the 3-9 adventure he even lost to Navy, not a single one of whose players would even be considered at Notre Dame. Coaching matters.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | January 06, 2009 at 09:15 PM
Or course coaching matters (I am married to a retired HS coach who coached with one of the winningest head coaches here in Georgia). So does the prestige of the school. We had players who moved to our district and were there just to play for our head coach for the exposure for scholarships. Mind you, most of these were dirt poor kids and this was an affluent part of Atlanta... let's just say I still am not sure how some of those transfers passed muster.
Spurrier, for all of his skills isn't knocking em dead at SC. It just isn't a "name" school for football. He was always outstanding at FL, but has had middling success at SC. Difference in prestige and yes it affects the recruiting race...
and I guess it puts lie to that old Dawg joke...
What's the difference between Steve Spurrier and God? God doesn't think he's Steve Spurrier...
ESPN was all over the Okie freshman that made the inane comment that the Heisman QB would rate at #4 in the Big 12. Then of course they went and asked Tebow about it. I just wouldn't want to be on the Okie O-line on Thursday. From what I hear, FLs team would walk through fire for Tebow and they are not gonna let this go without a response... Bradford my not make it out of the first quarter, either.
Stupid freshmen and their mouths... I'm sure Stoops was real happy to hear about this.
Posted by: Stephanie | January 07, 2009 at 12:41 AM
Well, I note that Charlie Weis gets a top-ten recruiting class every year at Notre Dame, but still manages to log a 3-9 season
As a long-time Domer hater, I have come to the conclusion that many players become five star blue chips simply because ND recruits them. Whether they have any talent or not.
E. Nigma points to recruiting, but the previous five years here in Lincoln of watching big time recruits become prima donnas or just plain go to seed under a ridiculously poor motivator makes me suspicious of that theory. I had twenty years prior of watching Osborne take no-name farmboy walk-ons and turn them into good college football players. Gotta be some combination of talent properly coached. Not one or the other.
And please DoT...
Give us a few seasons and the rightful balance of power will be restored in the Big XII.
Posted by: Soylent Red | January 07, 2009 at 02:25 AM
Mr. Hate, Georgia did not run up the score against Florida last year. They never run up the score on anybody...check the record. They did pull the stunt of swarming the field after that first touchdown, and Urban did make them pay for it. That said, Meyer knew that was something that Georgia got out of hand on that one occasion. Calling the time outs at the end of the game this year was just plain garbage. But hey, he's got scoreboard, so all I can do is cry in Ketel 1 Dry Vodka Martini Up...no fruit.
Posted by: Donald | January 07, 2009 at 03:16 AM
That would be "my" Ketl 1 Dry Vodka Martini up...no fruit.
Posted by: Donald | January 07, 2009 at 03:16 AM
Georgia did not run up the score against Florida last year. They never run up the score on anybody...check the record.
Georgia 56 Central Michigan 17
Same point differential as Florida 49 Georgia 10
Posted by: Captain Hate | January 07, 2009 at 08:17 AM
Btw, I'm not saying there's anything unsportsmanlike about the Central Michigan score
Posted by: Captain Hate | January 07, 2009 at 08:19 AM
The problem with evaluating "recruting" is all the so-called experts on ESPN and the fan magazines have their versions of "top recruiting classes", and coaches have their own version.
Recruiting high school kids at 17 years old and figuring out how good they are going to be in three years is tricky. Some are obviously talented. Sometimes a coach sees potential in a guy that needs to put on weight and needs a good weight training schedule to turn him into a top notch lineman (as in Tom Osborne at Nebraska), because he already has the right attitude.
Big time programs are full of guys that "couldn't miss", that do miss because they are prima donnas.
Urban Meyer and Pete Carroll share one recruiting trait in common. They recruit for speed. These are both fast teams (Florida and USC). Bud Wilkinson once said of his famous teams that won 46 games in a row back in the late 40's, that he took the 11 fastest guys on the team and put them on defense.
You can't teach speed.
Posted by: E. Nigma | January 07, 2009 at 08:42 AM
They were playing subs in the third quarter, there were a lot of turnovers etc...Central Michigan was hopelessly outmanned, we shouldn't have been playing them.
Posted by: Donald | January 07, 2009 at 09:21 AM
Fot Tiger Woods fans (my nephew, Jason, is the oddsmaker mantioned)Tiger
Posted by: clarice | January 07, 2009 at 09:42 AM
I know I shouldn't say we. I'm also seeing this morning that Moreno and Stafford are going to announce for the draft, so this season just turned out special. And I will not whine about losing 19 players to season ending injuries and having I believe 39 total players miss games. I won't. I just won't.
Posted by: Donald | January 07, 2009 at 09:48 AM
Good for Jason! I check in with LVSC at least once a week all throught football season. If I am to be reincarnated, I want to be either an Italian Count or an analyst at LVSC. Hell, why not both?
I have heard a lot of sports-talk buzz about recruits being overrated simply because ND is interested in them. I dunno...
But anyone who has read or heard about the way Pete Carroll organizes and runs his practices, and keeps his players' competitive edge honed, knows that there are plenty of coaches around who would not enjoy the same success even with that talent pool he attracts. No question that attracting the talent is a major part of the college coaching job, just as evaluating it is part of the pro coaches' job.
I have no dog in the Fla-Okla fight, but if I were to bet I would take Fla. and give the three points. I base this on the Tebow factor, the Urban Meyer factor and the Bob Stoops factor (four straihgt BCS bowl losses). Clarice, what does Jason think? Or is that proprietary?
Posted by: Danube of Thought | January 07, 2009 at 09:55 AM
Well, I note that Charlie Weis gets a top-ten recruiting class every year at Notre Dame, but still manages to log a 3-9 season followed by 7-6.
Notre Dame has become a career-ender for top coaches. I was soooo jealous when they got Tyrone Willingham.
Posted by: MayBee | January 07, 2009 at 09:58 AM
Donald, maybe you could start with whining about getting beat between the hedges by first-year coach Paul Johnson and Ga. Tech, playing a brand-new offense with someone else's recruits, none of whom came to school expecting to run the triple option.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | January 07, 2009 at 09:58 AM
No can do Danube, they're gonna win about one out of every seven. I accept that in the spirit of competition! I love Paul Johnson by the way. I've serious Statesboro connections.
Posted by: Donald | January 07, 2009 at 10:04 AM
No can do Danube. They won. Hell, I'll give'em one out of every seven in the spirit of statewide competition. Plus Morgan Burnette went to my high school and is a great kid who's gonna make millions. If another post comes up in a minute, this supercedes.
Posted by: Donald | January 07, 2009 at 10:09 AM
DoT, I'd never ask him to tell me something like that. Jason was a monomaniacal sports fan and has what has always been his dream job. I guess lots of guys would love to do what he does. (He's a really nice guy and very shy .)
Posted by: clarice | January 07, 2009 at 10:12 AM
Having talent and knowing how to use it are two different things. Even though I hold Urban Meyer in the highest regard, it wasn't until after the loss to Ol' Miss (which showed itself to be a much better team than the "experts" were giving them credit for once they figured out Nutt's offense, as Tejas Tech learned) that he started really incorporating speedsters Demps and Rainey to a greater extent in the offense, which is why he could lose a stud like Harvin and still beat Alabama. Midseason moves like that are unfortunately not always recognized by the screwball BCS idiots; maybe all the empty seats in the bowls will prod the NCAA to institute a playoff, like they do for Divs 2 & 3.
Posted by: Captain Hate | January 07, 2009 at 11:09 AM
Suppose they had a "plus one" format in place today? Who would play the winner of Okla-Florida, Utah or USC?
I've been living with arguments over year-end polls all my life, and kind of enjoy them. I'm not that hot to have a football playoff, perhaps because I'm a senior citizen...
Posted by: Danube of Thought | January 07, 2009 at 11:30 AM
Suppose they had a "plus one" format in place today? Who would play the winner of Okla-Florida, Utah or USC?
I've been living with arguments over year-end polls all my life, and kind of enjoy them. I'm not that hot to have a football playoff, perhaps because I'm a senior citizen...
I agree!
I a bowl girl born and bred. The only absolutely correct year-end #1 is when your own team is named.
Posted by: MayBee | January 07, 2009 at 11:46 AM
I've been living with arguments over year-end polls all my life, and kind of enjoy them.
Yup. It builds up the irrational grudges and artificial rivalries that help power me through to baseball season when I can flip on my Yankee hate for a while.
I dislike college football teams for unfairly coming in ahead of Nebraska in the 1980s. Please don't take away my abnormal psychology.
Posted by: Soylent Red | January 07, 2009 at 12:24 PM
I think my big problem is the whole concept of the BCS. The only two viable options to it look to be regression to no system at all and let everyone argue at the end of the season or some sort of play-off based championship. The BCS is the worst of both worlds.
Like the poll system, it is so parochial that it effectively removes any hope of an upstart like Utah from getting a shot at the brass ring while at the same time insuring the other 'big' conference fans get to walk around with wounded attitudes. As long as the sporting press plays along and the money earned by the BCS conferences remains outrageous, the system won't change. There will be one "Championship" game and 30+ exhibition/consolation games to maybe determine the number 3 team in the country.
Posted by: kaz | January 07, 2009 at 12:47 PM
I agree, Kaz. When I was a kid there was one poll--the AP. Whoever was first after the final game was called the national champion. Sometimes the national champion would go on to lose in a bowl game, but there was no post-bowl taken. Then we could all argue about it in the offseason, and noboday really got that bent out of shape--perhaps because we didn't have ESPN, Fox Sports Net and the internet.
At some point, along came a second poll--UPI. On occasion there would be two different champs. In 1954, for example, UCLA won one of them and Ohio State won the other. Perfec: let them meet in the Rose Bowl, right? Not so fast, my friend: there was a rule back then that neither the Big Ten nor the Pac-8 could send the same team two years in a row, so one of the two (I forget which) didn't go to any bowl at all.
It all seems pretty quaint, doesn't it? But much better than listening to the puling, caterwauling and belly-aching of the insufferable Mike Lupica in his high-pitched whine.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | January 07, 2009 at 01:15 PM
*post-bowl poll*
Posted by: Danube of Thought | January 07, 2009 at 01:16 PM
*nobody*
*Perfect*
Sorry--nobody's perfect.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | January 07, 2009 at 01:18 PM
I agree, Kaz. When I was a kid there was one poll--the AP. Whoever was first after the final game was called the national champion. Sometimes the national champion would go on to lose in a bowl game, but there was no post-bowl taken.
And it was great, because the goal was the bowl, much more than the National Championship (unless you won).
Posted by: MayBee | January 07, 2009 at 01:18 PM
One of the issues with Notre Dame, Stanford, UCLA, Cal and a number of other schools is student-athlete GPA. Most of these schools require 3.0 GPA's regardless. It makes the recruiting pool much smaller. Some schools, like USC and many others will allow 3-4 marginal students in, and it's a hard limit. At the major football factories, anything goes.
Posted by: matt | January 07, 2009 at 02:01 PM
I read in SI about ten years ago that ND requires, no exceptions, that every freshman take and pass calculus. That alone eliminates a lot of linebackers and safeties from consideration, I think (and many players at other positions as well).
Posted by: Danube of Thought | January 07, 2009 at 02:48 PM
I hate Notre Dame.
Posted by: MayBee | January 07, 2009 at 02:59 PM
Maybee, I still have a t-shirt from one of the 70s ND-GT games at GA Tech with "Duck Notre Fame" on it... guess I'm a hater, too.
Posted by: Stephanie | January 07, 2009 at 04:45 PM
DoT,
Having grown up in Big 10 country, I can pretty well tell you it was OSU that didn't go. I still recall a time back in the late '60s, early '70s when the Big 10 sent one team to the Rose Bowl and that was IT. No Sun, Sugar, Cotton, Orange, Peach, etc. Bowl for second place [much less fifth or sixth]. That was one of the reasons THE GAME with Michigan became so huge in the OSU schedule. I also recall a rather quaint rule that said if two teams tied for the conference championship, the team that made the most recent trip to Pasadena stayed home so the other guys could have a chance to play in a bowl. It's almost too sportsmanlike for words these days.
Of course all of that changed when television and appearance money started really rolling in with the proliferation of New Year's Day bowls and the conference decided it was silly to cut themselves off from all that wonderful swag by sticking with principles.
Posted by: kaz | January 07, 2009 at 04:51 PM
As I recall from my wasted youth, OSU beat Michigan in the season ender in 1967, went out to play OJ Simpson's USC team on Jan 1, 1968 and won the national championship that year.
They were again undefeated in Nov. 1968 and LOST to Michigan, knowing that they would not go to a Rose Bowl game because of the no-repeat rule, even though at the time they were rated No. 1.
And why does USC, who dominates the Pac 10 (or whatever it's called now) always get to play in home game at the Rose Bowl? Huh?
Posted by: E. Nigma | January 07, 2009 at 06:13 PM
USC "gets" to play in the Rose Bowl because the Pac-10 and the Big Ten have an agreement with the Rose Bowl committee. USC fans and players very much wanted NOT to play in the Rose Bowl this year, and were rooting strongly for Oregon State to beat Oregon, thus becoming the Pac-10 champ and earning the "honor." USC's only chance to vault into a final number 1 ranking in at least the AP poll would have been to whup up on an Alabama or a Texas in one of the other bowls. Whupping up on the two best teams in the Big Ten doesn't count for anything anymore. As one of the USC players said (before the game), "I think we've shown in the past couple of years that the Big Ten is a bit too slow."
Posted by: Danube of Thought | January 07, 2009 at 06:39 PM
USC could pretty much whup up on just about anybody except perhaps Florida this year. Hands down one of the best SC teams in 40 years. Easterners, including the press, discount Pac-10 football, but the rivalries are just as intense as anywhere else, where even teams like Cal and Arizona get way up for the SC game every season. A lot of major upsets over the years, which makes every season an adventure. OSU has their number again and this is the second time they ruined a perfect USC season. By the way, they were pretty good this year as well.
The Rose Bowl has traditionally been the Big 10 vs Pac 10 for the past 30+ years, the exception being the BCS miasma.
SC probably has the most fun of any Div I team as well. Pete Carroll is simply an amazing presence. I felt he ratcheted the offense back out of respect for Joe Pa this year. Very few coaches would do that. A class act all the way.
Posted by: matt | January 07, 2009 at 07:56 PM
Whupping up on the two best teams in the Big Ten
That's sort of like beating up the two biggest ballerinas in the local dance school.
Posted by: Soylent Red | January 07, 2009 at 09:39 PM
You know, Obama has a lot of interest in a play off system, so it WILL be fixed, and YOU WILL ALL LIKE IT. Or you'll be a bunch of racists. Or bigots. Or whatever.
Posted by: Donald | January 08, 2009 at 12:09 AM
Oh you guys with your Big 10 sucks talk.
Ohio State were national champs in 2003. They've played for the championship since then.
Talk now, because your day will come.
Posted by: MayBee | January 08, 2009 at 12:35 AM